In re L.S. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 23, 2022 No. B311220Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the termination of juvenile dependency jurisdiction, holding that the mother's challenges to prior jurisdictional orders were barred by res judicata and that her claims regarding appellate counsel's performance lacked merit.

Issues

Whether the mother may challenge the juvenile court's August 2019 jurisdictional and dispositional orders in a subsequent appeal.
Whether the mother's claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel warrant reversal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is too late for mother to raise these arguments. Where a parent had an opportunity to contest the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders in a prior appeal, the parent is barred from doing so in a subsequent appeal.”

“Those orders are final now, and mother may not collaterally attack them.”

“Finding no merit to mother’s contentions, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders.”

Filed 6/23/22 In re L.S. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re L.S., a Person Coming B311220 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP07438A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

L.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

L.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating its jurisdiction over L.S. (L.S.), her 11-year-old son.

The court had exerted dependency jurisdiction over him due to mother’s abuse in repeatedly encouraging L.S. to lie to doctors, social workers, and police by telling them that father was mistreating him. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could not find any arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel advised mother that she could seek permission from us to file a brief raising any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.) Mother filed a one-page letter brief in which she argues that (1) the juvenile court’s August 2019 jurisdictional order was defective, and (2) her counsel on appeal did not properly consult with her before filing the Phoenix H. brief. As discussed below, it is too late for mother to raise defects with the jurisdictional order because the opportunity to do so long ago expired; mother may also not challenge her appellate attorney’s representation on the basis of extra-record evidence in this appeal. Finding no merit to mother’s contentions, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and M.A. (father) married in 2009, and divorced in 2014. L.S. was born in July 2010. After a protracted custody battle in family court, the trial court found that mother was willfully impeding father’s ability to bond with L.S. and, on that basis, awarded father full legal and physical custody of L.S. That order was affirmed on appeal. (Aadam v. Suttle (June 27, 2016, B263894) [nonpub. opn.].) In late 2018, mother repeatedly reported to doctors and law enforcement that L.S. was being abused while in father’s custody; specifically, mother reported that father was feeding L.S. foods to

In re L.S. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief